CP Snow said in The Two Cultures: And a Second Look that these two statements should be equivalent: "I know what the Second Law of Thermodynamics is" and "I have read a play of Shakespeare's". I disagree with this statement because science and art should not live together as one culture, but symbiotically along side one another to compliment and conflict so that this "Third Culture" that Victoria Vesna discussed in Toward a Third Culture: Being in between, can emerge.
 |
Ultra conservative Trump
vs.
Ultra liberal Bernie |
This reminds me of politics because government has similar conflicting trains of thought. I am a Democrat with very liberal beliefs, however as angry as the GOP makes me, I very strongly acknowledge the need for conservative thought to balance the political spectrum and allow the result of the conflict to represent America's ideological mean. A country cannot survive entirely on one side of the political spectrum, so instead of forming a magical third party with all the answers, the wide spectrum of political stances are designed to breed a rational and well functioning center party that does not exist, but is a representation of the population's neutrality between the extremes. So this blended "Third Culture" that Victoria Vesna is describing does exist, but it is not the third culture, it is the only culture. The negative clash of the two cultures that CP Snow describes in Strangers and Brothers is not the source of our academic problems in America as he writes, but rather I believe the reason our education system is still working so well with such an old process.
 |
RSAnimate's video adaptation of
Sir Ken Robinson's lecture |
Sir Ken Robinson articulates in his lecture to RSAnimate in June 2008 why our education system is old and inefficient. He says, "Divergent thinking is an essential capacity for thinking," meaning that tailored learning that accommodates the vast variety of intellectually unique humans lets everyone fall somewhere on the educational spectrum from objectively analytical scientists to subjectively expressive artists so that people are able to answer questions non-linearly and maximize there learning potential. Each party of thought helps the other achieve more than one can independently. Aldous Huxley wrote in Music at Night, "That which comes nearest to expressing the inexpressible is music," which is an example of how art can help science beyond its capabilities, and furthermore how science can cement art in reality. Personally, I am a more objective and concrete thinker which lands me further to the scientific side of the scale. I am an economics major and have recognized what my strengths as a learner are, so I have no desire to read Shakespeare because the Second Law of Thermodynamics makes more sense to me, and I will let someone with inverse interests to myself balance out the cultural weight I present on society's scale.
Isaac Newton (left) and William Shakespeare (right) are the two most famous figures in the fields of the sciences and the arts.
------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Snow, Charles Percy The Two Cultures: and A Second Look. Reading. New York: Cambridge UP, 1963. Print.
Vesna, Victoria. "Toward a Third Culture: Being In Between." Leonardo 34.2 (2001): 121-25. Web.
Snow, Charles Percy Strangers and Brothers. New York: Scribner, 1960. Print.
Robinson, Sir Ken. "Changing Education Paradigms." RSAnimate. 8 John Adam Street, London. 16 June 2008. Lecture.
Huxley, Aldous. Music at Night: & Other Essays. London: Chatto & Windus, 1931. Print.
-----------------------------------------------------
Image sources:
http://funds.gfmcdn.com/6076947_1455981658.8803.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U
http://anglotopia.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Sir-Isaac-Newton-HD-Wallpaper.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Shakespeare.jpg
I think you pose an interesting point in that maybe the vast number of people in society should be able to balance out the missing bridge between art and science because only by staying in their field can they best reflect their learning style or intellectual interests. At the same time, I think each "extreme," math/science and art/humanities can benefit each other by taking bits and pieces of each other to learn new practices or inspire ideas. It is fine that you have no desire to read Shakespeare, and it is fine that a humanities student doesn't understand the second law of thermodynamics. However, by introducing the conversation between you two, to collaborate and share the knowledge you do have, that is what creates genius in the world.
ReplyDeleteHi Josh,
ReplyDeleteYou argue that it is better to have a "symbiotic" relationship between Science and Art, rather than a combined Third Culture. But do you think American politics is the best example for how this relationship would work? Sure, the country benefits from a wide range of political beliefs amongst our citizens and politicians, but wouldn't we be better suited to have politicians that come from a more mixed background? I dont think every economics major should enjoy Shakespeare, and I wouldn't expect every English major to enjoy Thermodynamics. But certainly it would be better if the two could merge somewhat.
The problem with America's 2-party system is it allows little room for mixed opinions. It's nearly impossible for someone who is fiscally conservative but socially liberal to be elected. It seems like you need to be pro-choice to also be pro-environment or anti-free trade. For this reason I think politics is a poor model of what an ideal society would look like. In all areas it would be better to have a wide spectrum of Art and Science interests rather than one-faceted polarization.